Case No. 17-834 | Kan.
Preview by Sean Lowry, Online Editor*
In Kansas, the Court will examine whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) preempts states from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, which is used for verifying the identity and employment authorization of individuals hired in the United States, for the prosecution of a state crime.
Ramiro Enriquez Garcia was charged with a state count of identity theft after local police discovered that he used the Social Security number of another individual when he applied for employment as a restaurant cook. At trial, Garcia’s counsel tried to block prosecutors from using his W-4 federal tax holding form as evidence, as he had transferred information from his I-9 to his W-4. The trial judge denied Garcia’s motion, and he was convicted. Garcia’s lawyers appealed his case up to the Kansas Supreme Court.
In a split decision, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Garcia—holding that IRCA preempted state law based on statutory language prohibiting the use of “any information contained in or appended” to federal immigration forms for any “purposes other than” enforcement of enumerated federal offenses. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5) (2018). Thus, the use of the information contained in the I-9 forms for the prosecution of a Kansas crime was a violation of federal law. Although the court’s opinion labels this as “express preemption,” State v. Garcia, 306 Kan. 1113, 1130–31 (2017), a concurring opinion notes that analysis underlying the court’s opinion seems to fall more into the grey area of implied preemption, Id. at 1132 (Luckert, J., concurring). According to that concurring opinion, though, Congress’s comprehensive statutory scheme prevents states from occupying the “field” governing employment of undocumented individuals and would undermine federal policy discretion towards the enforcement of such provisions. Id. at 1136–37.
In their briefs to the Court, the parties discuss complex issues of textual analysis of statutes and preemption doctrine. In short, Kansas argues that its Supreme Court read § 1324a(b)(5) too restrictively, as the state ultimately did not rely on the I-9 form itself when prosecuting Mr. Garcia. Counsel for Mr. Garcia makes statutory analysis arguments similar to those made in the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion, and implied preemption arguments similar to those made in the Kansas Supreme Court’s concurrence. In addition to the federal law claims, Kansas argues that the decision below upsets the constitutional balance of federalism by effectively limiting state police powers. Mr. Garcia’s counsel urges the Court to not address this issue, as the Petitioner did not raise it in the proceedings below.
*Sean Lowry is a 3LE (Class of 2021) and Analyst in Public Finance at the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of the Library of Congress or CRS.